Boycotting Amazon

I have so far resisted posting anything serious on this thread for several reasons.
Firstly, having lived in the tax haven of Monaco for several years I did not want to appear hypocritical. I am sure the residents of other tax havens would not be happy to see their own taxes increase if their country lost the income derived from off-shore accounts and, in some case, money
laundering. I am, of course, not resident in the UK (although I pay tax on my government pensions).
Secondly, I know from experience in the Inland Revenue the complexity of these schemes. There is one very well-known businessman who is generally considered to be a very nice chap. It took a team of twenty inspectors to follow the labyrinthine trail of profits through about one hundred different companies, based around the world.
Thirdly, I would need to do a lot more research on the tax avoidance schemes and the efficacy of boycotts before making up my mind, and I would keep my decision private as it really has nothing to do with anybody else.
I totally reject the notion that in some way people who do not agree with a boycott are responsible for the tragic story of the child's death. That really is an unacceptable argument.

Lastly, I am dealing with a very difficult family situation this week and I do not feel like getting into a long-drawn out political debate. As I have never used a UK coffee bar and have no need to use Amazon this Christmas (I will be taking NZ dollars to my grandchildren in February) I do not think there is anything useful I could do but I will, nevertheless, carry out some research for my own information.

Well said, greatnan. I was going to ask if the economies of tax havens like Monaco and Switzerland depend on the money they 'store' for the tax avoiders of other countries. I think you've answered my question, at least in part.

It certainly is not a simple issue.

Labyrinthine indeed!

Well, if that family was badly housed because there was not enough public money to re-house them then, yes, tax avoiders could be said to be partly responsible. The money has to come from somewhere.

Greatnan Respect. I trust that the difficult family issue has a positive outcome.

Obviously people who do not boycott companies are not responsible. As if!

The family has been re-housed soop. After the bad publicity the council got through the death of their baby.

jings We all hope for a little light at the end of ongoing gloom and doom.

Apparently a ceasefire has been agreed between Hamas and Israel.

Oh, soop, how we all hope that it holds. So many people being killed and hurt on both sides.

It seems to be holding soop

May I put in a word of support for Amazon -

Some of you know about my son who suffered a life changing stroke, wrote a book, self-published it and offered it for sale through Amazon. A number of you were kind enough to buy it but would you have bothered to search it out and buy it if it wasn't available on Amazon?

He has sold a fair few after being on local radio and speaking at the Headway National Conference. I doubt those people would have bothered to look for the book if it wasn't so readily available. But writing and, importantly, selling so many books has helped his self-esteem immensely and helped him to move on. As his parent that makes Amazon a force for good in my eyes!

I agree with all the people who say that it isn't up to us to make Amazon pay more tax. We pay as little tax as possible, legally, don't we all? Aren't ISAs a micro form of tax avoidance?

This is so complicated isn't it?
I find it easy to boycott Starbucks, plenty of alternatives and lousy coffee anyway.
I changed my mobile from Vodafone as they're another tax dodger. So I'll do what I can. But Amazon has become part of my lifestyle. And they are amazingly efficient.
So our government has to become efficient too and put measures in places that will at least capture some of the taxes due to us. Yes, us..it's our taxes that we need to rebuild our economy.
But the problem is the country is being run by a bunch if amateurs, no matter what party they come from. The like of George Osbourne and Vincent Cable and Ed Balls, have neither the qualifications nor the experience to do what needs to be done. They have to rely on others to advise them and then weigh up what is good advice and what isn't (remember 'Yes, Minister'????). They are simply not up to 'playing with the big boy' bankers, financiers, etc..
And then everything has to be short term and therefore populist or they won't get re-elected.

Nanadog - I would love to believe it is simple naivety, rather than doing favours for your cronies in big business. The Vodaphone deal is still being investigated, I think, as Dave Hartnett did not have the necessary advice from HMRC's own lawyers to allow him to give them such a huge 'let off'. When Private Eye starts to reveal 'alleged' wrong-doing, it is often proved to be right. Hartenett has not sued.

Not just nativity (??stupid iPad) naively I agree but another valid reason why things just don't get done.

Nanadog Vince Cable is at least an economist and has worked as an economic advisor in various places. George Osborne has, as far as I know, absolutely no qualifications or professional experience to be Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think his subject at Oxford was modern history. Ed Balls did PPE so, presumably, has some grasp of economics, at least in theory.

I'd agree that George Osbourne is the least of the three as far as qualifications go absent . Just been reading Vince Cable's CV and it does seem he has more than just qualification in Economics but actual hands on experience. He would have seemed a more obvious choice as Chancellor. I know Mervyn King was not happy with Osbourne's appointment.

Nanadog The chances of a Tory PM appointing an MP from the junior partner in the coalition to the second most powerful job (sometimes arguably the first most powerful) in government are remote to the point of disappearance. The job of Chancellor is also often seen as the stepping stone to PM. God forbid or maybe even Gove forbid.

That was my thought * absent* ...they put politics before common sense.